There was a time I had his illustrated Beatles' lyrics but some excess walking protein nicked it donkey's ago. By all accounts he became a very troubled sould and difficult but his images probably set a style for the time.

They've nearly all gone. And when they have all gone there is nothing to replace them, let alone continue a tradition.

Indeed, a real find for me. Interesting that he began as an art director, according to the atrociously written but still informative bio on the web site. The images all come with a clear and strong idea and he uses different photographic styles freely as they suit his purpose.

There was a time I had his illustrated Beatles' lyrics but some excess walking protein nicked it donkey's ago. By all accounts he became a very troubled sould and difficult but his images probably set a style for the time.

They've nearly all gone. And when they have all gone there is nothing to replace them, let alone continue a tradition.

Walter, you have no idea how I mourn the passing of some of these people. It's as if part of my own life has been ripped out and throw into the bin. I respected so many of them, bought what I could afford or looked for their books in libraries (not with heaps of luck, mind you) and bought every magazine that I saw that had their name on the cover. Though I didn't, I felt that I knew them.

And no, there isn't anyone coming up behind.

The reason is, many contemporary guys are as good if not better, technically, but the originals set the idea standards and nothing has managed to replace those standards. Photoshopping isn't a valid advance on creativity and vision: that takes place at the camera. Photoshop is just another darkroom tool, not a way of thinking, a demonstration of personality.

I felt that we knew them because so much of what they did came from places so deep within rather than being the product of attempted emulation.

I also firmly believe that stopping to reload provided a punctuation point to the thought process And forgetting digital for a moment, I don't really think 'Auto-' anything helped all that either. Auto-focus. Auto-exposure.

I felt that we knew them because so much of what they did came from places so deep within rather than being the product of attempted emulation.

I also firmly believe that stopping to reload provided a punctuation point to the thought process And forgetting digital for a moment, I don't really think 'Auto-' anything helped all that either. Auto-focus. Auto-exposure.

Cheers,

W

Especially autofocus.

To me, part of the buzz with longer lenses is the almost tactile feeling of focussing by hand. Not only is it a thrill to see things pop in and out of focus, but it also forces you to think about which the best plane to focus upon might actually be: I have sometimes discovered that the accidentally found alternative offers a better image than did my original idea.

I also think that manual allows for a more 'focussed' way of thought, with less distraction.

The BBC shows a Scandinavian crime series on Saturday nights called Arne Dahl.

I watch it, now and again, but sometimes it's just too clinically violent for my tastes and I pass. However, the point of mentioning it is this: some of the framing is amazingly good, especially when they shoot scenes or people through something like a window, props on a table, that sort of thing. Some of the best stills can be found in movies.

The show has English subtitles and they sometimes distract just at the best moments...

Does anyone know what Arne Dahl signifies? Is it somebody's name? I can't grasp any of the characters' names - might as well be Russians or Arabs for the connections I can make to anything or anyone. (How convenient were names like Mr Jones, Miss Smith, Mr Brown, Mrs Green.) Okay, I remember who slept with whom, but that's about it.

That was a super clip Rob, thanks. And the one after it with Albert Watson was a cracker, too!

W

Didn't notice Albert was on there - thanks, I'l ltry again. He went, briefly, to the same Dundee art college as did my painter cousin and his son in turn.

Helena C. is one of those women that I would just love to photograph, regardless of how old she will become. I love her style of looks - no dumb blonde connotations whatsoever. I was a bit surprised at her list of 'heroes' but there you go, different times, different loyalty priorities.

It was funny to hear how Leica and 'blad have deserted the analogue snapper... could she be serious when saying that it should be her images that matter to those guys?

My exact thought. Leica and 'blad and all the rest are in the moving product biz. Not the art biz. I was surprised at her surprise!

Peter

I'd guess that she was having a pop at them, knowing full-well where their interests always lay. Mind you, it would be interesting to know what would happen is she went digital, and neither do I know how old the video: she said her Leica was 25 years old... good news for Leica on the one hand, but also a reason why they might have chosen to go digital: more goes wrong and so more sales, especially to fanboys.

I clearly remember Leica catalogues for the M film cameras saying that rangefinder focussing with wide-angle lenses was much more accurate than with slr cameras; strange how these days one hears the opposite: rangfinder focussing isn't very good, and thus it's not a bright idea to shoot with wide open apertures... how things change in the telling!

I suspect that if Helena Christensen gave up her Pentax 67 and romanced Leica, they'd give her all the gear she asked for, and a fee, too. It was difficult, from the video, to know exactly whose pics were whose.

I saw some great shots of Helena, on Pentax 67, by Sante D'Orazio. In one magazine they looked like shutter bounce, but in another - I think his website - they seem crisp enough...

It's a wonderful world out there, I'm waiting to start again. My problem is, I've kind of lost my Tardis.